Democrats just can’t let go of their push for an assault weapons ban. Meanwhile, Americans are waiting for the Supreme Court to intervene. Thirteen times, the court has relisted the Snope v. Brown case, which addresses Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines. It seems increasingly likely the court will hear the case next year, and the decisions in Heller and Bruen make it clear that these bans are unconstitutional. These laws ban guns “in common use,” and no comparable historical analog exists for these bans.
But on April 30, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-California) introduced the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban of 2025.” It picks up where his predecessor, Dianne Feinstein, left off. It bans semi-automatic rifles that use detachable magazines and have a barrel shroud, a cover for the barrel that allows the user to hold the barrel while aiming the gun without burning their hand. Schiff's bill would outlaw widely owned semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15.
Just a week earlier, Illinois state Sen. Celina Villanueva introduced the “Responsible Gun Manufacturing Act,” which would effectively ban popular Glock semi-automatic handguns.
In April, Colorado enacted a law that makes it illegal to buy, sell, and make semi-automatic firearms that have detachable ammunition magazines without time-consuming training, which the governor hopes could cost $200.
This push isn’t new. In 1998, then–Illinois state senator Barack Obama backed a ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.” For years, gun-control advocates targeted guns based on their appearance. Now, instead of going after how a gun looks, Democrats have shifted to targeting how guns function. In 2021, President Joe Biden announced: “whether it’s a 9-millimeter pistol or whether it’s a rifle — is ridiculous. I’m continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things.” In 2022, he said: “I don’t see any rationale to why there should be such a weapon able to be purchased.”
The AR-15 became a popular target because it resembles the military’s M-16. But AR-15s use essentially the same bullets as do small-game hunting rifles. They even fire at the same rapidity and cause the same damage. Unlike fully automatic machine guns, which will fire bullets for as long as you press the trigger, semi-automatic firearms fire only one bullet per trigger pull. No self-respecting military in the world would use these semi-automatic guns.
The uninformed may still ask, “Why do people need an AR-15 to kill deer?” “What do you think – deer are wearing Kevlar vests?” Similarly, in 2023, Florida Congressman Jared Moskowitz claimed people don’t hunt deer with an AR-15 because it would leave “nothing left.” But they have it backward. Indeed, most states prohibit using the AR-15’s .223-inch bullets out of concern that they will wound, not kill, the animal, and they don’t want to make the deer suffer. The AR-15 may resemble a military weapon, but it is actually a small, game-hunting rifle.
If, however, the Democrats plan to ban semi-automatic handguns, banning revolvers isn’t far behind. Not that banning revolvers would reduce gun crime, either.
Revolvers get their name from a revolving cylinder that contains bullets in separate chambers. Gun-control advocates will eventually realize that revolvers actually fire bullets at a faster rate than do semi-automatic pistols — semi-automatics have to do a lot more work to load the next bullet in the chamber. Semi-automatics can hold more bullets and it used to be true that they could be reloaded more quickly than revolvers. But while semi-automatics are still easier to reload, technology has advanced to the point where people can reload revolvers just as quickly.
In contrast to semi-automatics that can hold a magazine of any size, revolvers are limited to eight to ten bullets (depending on the caliber of the bullets being used). But with training, a mass shooter can fire just as many bullets with a sufficient rapidity that their ability to commit these crimes would be unaffected by the time needed to reload.
Moreover, revolvers have a significant advantage over semi-automatics: They don’t jam as frequently. The spring in a magazine can lose strength and, therefore, its ability to properly push bullets cleanly into the chamber. Large-capacity magazines make jamming much more likely, as you need a very strong spring to push the last few bullets into the chamber. Jammed guns saved lives in both the Aurora, Colo, movie-theater shooting and the Gabby Giffords shooting in Tucson, Ariz.
Either way, today’s ignorant politicians want to ban all semi-automatic guns. Tomorrow, they will push to ban revolvers.
Will this make anyone safer or reduce gun violence? No.
While mass shooters can plan their attacks by bringing multiple guns, extra magazines, or speed loaders for revolvers, concealed-carry permit holders are unlikely to lug along any additional equipment. And the law-abiding citizen won’t be able to carry as many bullets in a legal revolver as in a potentially illegal semi-automatic.
So, if the Democrats ban self-loading guns that fire a bullet each time you pull the trigger, what is the alternative? Single-shot rifles that require you to reload the weapon after each shot, physically? Derringer handguns that can fire one or two rounds before they are reloaded?
Make no mistake, there would be a real cost to these bans, particularly for the most vulnerable people who are likely to be victims of violent crime (poor blacks who live in high-crime areas) and those who are weaker physically (women and the elderly).
Single-shot guns may not do people a lot of good when they are facing multiple attackers. Or, for that matter, when their first shot misses or fails to stop an attacker. These are cruel proposals for people who want to be able to defend themselves and others. The question is: Do these Democrats care?
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will soon put an end to all this craziness.
John R. Lott Jr. is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He is the author most recently of “Gun Control Myths.”